One of the issues in international judicial procedures lies in the delineation of power between international judicial organizations (IJOs) and State parties. However, there are no principal regulations on this point in respective conventions and procedural rules of those IJOs. Given literatures in international law differentiated three basic models of international judicial procedures resolving disputes between States, which are (strict) confrontation mode, negotiation model and investigation model. After observing rules and practices of the International Court, International Maritime Court and WTO's dispute settlement procedure, and induction and reconstruction respectively, we can ifnd that those IJOs all have competences and responsibilities principally in leading litigation procedures. They all own the competence as to the admissibility of evidence through all proving means ofifcially, but neither subjects to undisputed facts submitted from State parties, and to facts recognized expressively by or in fact agreed by themselves. Self-investigation about facts falls totally into the discretion of judges. This implies that the factual investigation power of IJOs in international judicial procedures corresponds with neither the strict confrontation mode nor the investigation model, but is close to the negotiation model.%国际性司法机构与当事国就事实调查的权限划分构成了国际司法程序的焦点之一，但国际性司法机构各自的规约与诉讼规则没有在这一问题上作出原则性规定。现有的国际法的文献区分出解决国家间争端之国际司法程序的三种基本诉讼模式，即（严格的）对抗模式、协商模式与纠问模式。通过分别考察国际法院、国际海洋法院和WTO争端解决机制的规则与实践，并分别加以归纳和重构，可以发现，国际性司法机构在国家间争议中基本上都有权也有义务引导诉讼程序，它们都拥有以官方途径就所有证明手段进行证据采信的权限，但也都受制于当事国所提交的无争议之事实，以及双方当事国明确认可或它们事实上都赞同的事实。自行调查事实则完全属于法官的自由裁量权。这说明，国际性司法机构在国际司法程序中的事实调查权既不吻合严格的对抗模式也不吻合纠问模式，而是接近于一种协商模式。
展开▼
